Post by: doc2rn on February 17, 2008, 05:39:04 PM
Post by: wooderson on February 17, 2008, 06:04:25 PM
You think a show about a cold-blooded psychopath who's trained himself to only kill acceptable victims (in part to simply avoid being caught) is pro-vigilantism?
I would have liked the show far more if it had made Dexter a more likable, human character and took more interest in the vigilantism. Gets kind of dull watching a guy with zero personality.
Post by: Bogie on February 17, 2008, 06:08:50 PM
There's nothing on the inside but a pragmatic "I want this, so I'm going to do this" being... The sociopaths who get caught are the ones who combine it with other freakiness. Some just keep going and going...
Post by: roo_ster on February 17, 2008, 07:05:48 PM
I was more put off by the sympathetic portrayal of the serial killer part of his psyche than his vigilantism, though it was troubling, too.
I wondered what sort of person comes up with that sort of show idea. Is it a morally jaded person or a morally inexperienced person who has never really encountered Really Bad Folks?
Post by: RevDisk on February 17, 2008, 07:13:09 PM
Have we sunk to an all time low? This new show, Dexter, making vigilantiism popular. Are we a depraved society or what?
Dunno. I've watched both seasons, and own all three books. First season was better than the first book in my opinion, which is rare. I like the character of Dexter moreso because he is trying to become more than he was. If you watch the show, he starts off as your basic sociopath with no emotional attachments. Then he starts to bond with his girlfriend and her children, and to show real feelings regarding their well being. First TV series involving 'emotional growth' I found interesting.
Sure, Dexter is a vigilante. But it's strictly because he's a serial killer and needs to off someone. So his foster father teaches him to off bad people instead of random strangers.
Post by: Bogie on February 17, 2008, 07:16:27 PM
Quote
Is it a morally jaded person or a morally inexperienced person who has never really encountered Really Bad Folks?
Could just be someone who watches the news...
And wondered... "What would happen if one of these Really Bad Folks decided to go after the other Really Bad Folks...?"
Post by: RevDisk on February 17, 2008, 07:38:52 PM
Quote
Is it a morally jaded person or a morally inexperienced person who has never really encountered Really Bad Folks?
Could just be someone who watches the news...
And wondered... "What would happen if one of these Really Bad Folks decided to go after the other Really Bad Folks...?"
As someone who has seem bad folks go after other bad folks, I can provide an answer. "Much entertainment."
Post by: Regolith on February 17, 2008, 08:34:29 PM
And wondered... "What would happen if one of these Really Bad Folks decided to go after the other Really Bad Folks...?"
We already have that. It's called gang warfare.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 18, 2008, 02:29:46 AM
Post by: HankB on February 18, 2008, 03:47:17 AM
Charles Bronson's character in the Death Wish movies, as well as Jodi Foster's in the more recent movie The Brave One, were vigilantes . . . but they didn't revel in the bad guys' blood; they just quickly killed genuinely bad people who needed killing, and as such, they were easy to admire and - dare I say - identify with. Both of these characters would be perfectly happy - eager, in fact - to peacefully go about their business as long as everyone else did, too.
Dexter, on the other hand, is a sicko who needs to kill & torture - he revels in it - and he's no less a sicko because his foster father pointed him at bad guys.
Post by: longeyes on February 18, 2008, 08:11:17 AM
Post by: wooderson on February 18, 2008, 09:45:00 AM
Post by: roo_ster on February 18, 2008, 10:56:35 AM
I agree with the anti-hero bit.
Still, H/A-H aside, he is the protagonist. He is they guy you're supposed to root for. Hooray for the serial killer!
Post by: wooderson on February 18, 2008, 11:23:39 AM
There's a long line of fictional protagonists who set out to take care of thsoe those who "need killin'" - because it's also a common refrain from people when they read about or see some particularly heinous act (or even a not-so-heinous act - how many gun forum posters pipe up with "shoulda shot him" for common burglary?). It's a nifty tack to make that stock character dealing out divine retribution a piece of evil himself. (Just too bad it makes for pretty dull TV at times.)
Post by: Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas on February 18, 2008, 01:15:54 PM
Post by: Iain on March 18, 2008, 02:24:47 PM
I dug this up because I'm now in series two and slightly more troubled by the programme than I was when watching series one. Initially hated the idea, only watched it at all because of Michael C Hall and Julie Benz (liked them in early Six Feet Under and Buffy respectively).
The idea troubles me, but he clearly appeals because he can do without any regret or feeling what we want someone to do. The impact of acts anything like that on a normal human being should be catastrophic, and I suspect that the Doakes character is there to remind us of that.
I read a news story the other day about an 18 year old already in prison for murder who has now been convicted of ordering a machete attack on someone and listening to it over the telephone from in prison. The victim survived, but the two guilty parties took pleasure in the act. Dexter exists because we don't really know how to deal with that, without getting blood on our own hands, or outsourcing that blood to another human being who is likely to be deeply affected.
Post by: Dntsycnt on March 18, 2008, 02:34:40 PM
Not everything can be Captain Commando blasting away the Bad Guys.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 18, 2008, 04:42:47 PM
I can understand why some people may not like the story. But it's just fiction, and it's easy enough to turn off if you don't like what you're seeing.
Post by: Leatherneck on March 19, 2008, 12:17:08 AM
If it's for relaxation, and this show isn't relaxing, then do the obvious. There are lots of great books around.
TC
Post by: Jamisjockey on March 19, 2008, 03:18:21 AM
And wondered... "What would happen if one of these Really Bad Folks decided to go after the other Really Bad Folks...?"
We already have that. It's called gang warfare.
Or prison.
Post by: keeleon on March 19, 2008, 07:27:24 AM
Personally I really enjoy anything with sociopathic, cold villains and anti heroes.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on March 19, 2008, 08:25:13 AM
Limits the chance of erroneously killing the innocent.
Post by: SomeKid on March 19, 2008, 08:39:42 AM
Post by: Dntsycnt on March 19, 2008, 08:45:41 PM
Post by: LadySmith on May 28, 2008, 02:24:08 AM
I enjoyed it because it was different. I don't root for him because of what he is, but sometimes for what he does. I don't recall seeing examples of him enjoying torture. His ritual is pretty methodical. I get the sense that the audience is supposed to watch him with the same emotional disconnect that his character watches us.
Also, Dexter reminds me of Sindawe.
Post by: Firethorn on May 28, 2008, 06:27:11 AM
I don't recall seeing examples of him enjoying torture.
That's the 'cleaned up for TV' part. In the books it gets a little more graphic, but even there it tends to do a fade out to later through the gruesome parts.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 28, 2008, 06:37:31 AM
Hey, a lot of sociopaths HAVE zero personality. They learn their personality by watching people, and acting in a mirror, etc...
There's nothing on the inside but a pragmatic "I want this, so I'm going to do this" being... The sociopaths who get caught are the ones who combine it with other freakiness. Some just keep going and going...
There's nothing on the inside but a pragmatic "I want this, so I'm going to do this" being... The sociopaths who get caught are the ones who combine it with other freakiness. Some just keep going and going...
So are you pro or anti sociopath?
Post by: Firethorn on May 28, 2008, 09:02:07 AM
So are you pro or anti sociopath?
IRL I'd want dextor to be caught ASAP. And promptly sent to solitary because types like that are dangerous no matter who you put them with.
TV wise, it's better than survivor, britney watch*, various other soaps. It's at least got a relatively unique twist.
*Or whatever the heck that show is that causes me to turn the TV off.
Post by: MechAg94 on May 28, 2008, 09:26:27 AM
Hasn't America always had a taste for vigilantism?
Yes, the US has a long and storied history of vigilantism. Often done for legitimate reasons, but it normally runs out of control. Not the same thing as this show. I heard about this show, but haven't watched it. I just find the idea a bit messed up.
Post by: RevDisk on May 28, 2008, 01:32:26 PM
Hey, a lot of sociopaths HAVE zero personality. They learn their personality by watching people, and acting in a mirror, etc...
There's nothing on the inside but a pragmatic "I want this, so I'm going to do this" being... The sociopaths who get caught are the ones who combine it with other freakiness. Some just keep going and going...
There's nothing on the inside but a pragmatic "I want this, so I'm going to do this" being... The sociopaths who get caught are the ones who combine it with other freakiness. Some just keep going and going...
So are you pro or anti sociopath?
I think the point isn't pro or anti sociopath, but the point that sociopaths are people also.
Post by: LadySmith on May 29, 2008, 01:48:15 AM
Is this because he's following his adopted father's "code" or is he something else?
If it is because of the code, wouldn't a sociopath be unable to adhere to one due to the nature of that disorder?
I think the point isn't pro or anti sociopath, but the point that sociopaths are people also.
Yes, 
Post by: LadySmith on September 17, 2008, 11:47:08 PM
Post by: Firethorn on September 18, 2008, 05:03:41 AM
I finished watching season 2 and though the Dexter character continues to develop and wallow in his angst quite nicely, I was very disappointed in what they did with the rest of the characters.
Having read the books, I think it'd be interesting to see if the show will DARE to make the kids like they are in the books.
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on September 18, 2008, 06:58:22 AM
You've got the Godfather movies, Star Wars (take your pick: Darth Vader or Han Solo), Dexter, Lock Stock & 2 Smoking Barrels, Many of Eastwood's characters from the spaghetti westerns, and more.
Shakespeare had anti-heroes. Look at Romeo, closely. What about him was truly heroic? But he was ultimately a character for whom you developed sympathy.
Anti-heroes can be traced as far back (off the top of my head) to Beowolf (boastful, prideful, selfish, lusting after another man's kingdom/wife and more). I'm willing to bet there are Biblical anti-heroes somewhere in the old testament.
They make for great post-entertainment discussion. Like we're having now.
They aren't a harbinger of impending societal doom.
Post by: seeker_two on September 18, 2008, 07:28:03 AM
Anti-heroes are all over the place in our modern folklore.
Anti-heroes can be traced as far back (off the top of my head) to Beowolf (boastful, prideful, selfish, lusting after another man's kingdom/wife and more). I'm willing to bet there are Biblical anti-heroes somewhere in the old testament.
Anti-heroes can be traced as far back (off the top of my head) to Beowolf (boastful, prideful, selfish, lusting after another man's kingdom/wife and more). I'm willing to bet there are Biblical anti-heroes somewhere in the old testament.
Read about Sampson, Moses, or Jonah......
Post by: richyoung on September 18, 2008, 12:14:51 PM
Anti-heroes are all over the place in our modern folklore.
...
Anti-heroes can be traced as far back (off the top of my head) to Beowolf (boastful, prideful, selfish, lusting after another man's kingdom/wife and more). I'm willing to bet there are Biblical anti-heroes somewhere in the old testament.
...
Anti-heroes can be traced as far back (off the top of my head) to Beowolf (boastful, prideful, selfish, lusting after another man's kingdom/wife and more). I'm willing to bet there are Biblical anti-heroes somewhere in the old testament.
King David, his sons Absolom and Soloman, and King Nebuchunezzar come to mind...
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 18, 2008, 12:35:15 PM
Post by: Brett Bellmore on September 20, 2008, 03:49:58 AM
"If it is because of the code, wouldn't a sociopath be unable to adhere to one due to the nature of that disorder?"
No, sociopaths lack empathy for others, but most of them are quite capable of pragmatic self-restraint. That's why you don't often see members of Congress kick little old ladies into the street while the cameras are rolling. Most of them are sociopaths, but they're 'high functioning' sociopaths, meaning that they're not otherwise impaired.
The sociopaths who get caught and jailed or institutionalized are the 'low functioning' ones, who've got sufficient other problems that they can't restrain their impulses.
Of course, I understand that there's been a move in the psychiatric community to define high functioning sociopaths as sane, to avoid the embarrassment of admitting most people in politics are nutcases.